Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-dev] RFC: "Near-miss" checking for defaulted protocol requirements

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 15:16, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Apr 25, 2016, at 13:13, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> >> * I believe "near miss" is less important than

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-dev] RFC: "Near-miss" checking for defaulted protocol requirements

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 13:13, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > wrote: > > * I believe "near miss" is less important than "intentional override", > requiring a signature of intent as in inheritance. This is a bit of a tangent, but as far as I know no one has

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-dev] RFC: "Near-miss" checking for defaulted protocol requirements

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Erica Sadun wrote: > > With apologies, I do not see near miss checks as a pressing need: > > * Quick Help lists of required members (including associated types and > inherited members) would be far more valuable to me than "near miss" >

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-dev] RFC: "Near-miss" checking for defaulted protocol requirements

With apologies, I do not see near miss checks as a pressing need: * Quick Help lists of required members (including associated types and inherited members) would be far more valuable to me than "near miss" detection. * I'd like the compiler to check for unsatisfied conformances and emit a list